Give ratings a lifetime, so that each single rating expires after 3 months -or-

Give ratings a fill zone of 100 ratings, so that each new rating after the 100th will knock off the oldest rating

Specifics/Details:

If a rating is given on May 1st, 2010 it will expire on August 1st, 2010 -or-

each player has a fill zone of 100 ratings. Every rating after the 100th will knock out the oldest or "first" rating in the fill zone

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

Allows ratings given unfairly or improperly to simply disappear over time or get washed out of the fill zone

Might save some frustration from players who felt they received unfair ratings

When players are convicted of Ratings Violations in the C&A Forum, offended players will know that the ratings will disappear over time or get washed out, as opposed to staying forever under the current system

Hello, Can anyone say "Policeboy?"

Might save server space. I don't know how much room those ratings take up, but even any size it would be nice to be able to limit the server space dedicated to something trivial.

Gives a better snapshot of how a player is performing at the given 6-month moment or over their last 100 games. (Works both ways...if a player started on CC poorly, then improved...or...if a player started well and then began to act like a jerk.)

This is an amazing idea! I have seen complaints about how new players have gotten their fifth or sixth rating and the person rating them was abusing the system and gave them all ones. At the point their rating drops to aroung 3, 3.5 and people stop playing with them, because of one unfair rater.

jrl332005 wrote:This is an amazing idea! I have seen complaints about how new players have gotten their fifth or sixth rating and the person rating them was abusing the system and gave them all ones. At the point their rating drops to aroung 3, 3.5 and people stop playing with them, because of one unfair rater.

I agree, having those terrible circumstances where players give unfair ratings should result in the rating getting erased...eventually...with time.

what would happen to the ratings given? would it affect the number you give according to the medal count as well? maybe we should just be able to have the first 100 or so or recent 3 months count towards the rating we see and have the other ones mean nothing after but stay there as another option.

4 U 2 NV wrote:what would happen to the ratings given? would it affect the number you give according to the medal count as well? maybe we should just be able to have the first 100 or so or recent 3 months count towards the rating we see and have the other ones mean nothing after but stay there as another option.

The ones that expired or got knocked out of the fill zone would be deleted. Perhaps some other kind of counter or tracker would be necessary to give the medal. The medal is kind of lame anyways, but it is there, so I suppose counting them up to 500 is necessary until the medal is awarded.

bad idea...ratings are peoples opinions and should be left. sure you get the off ratings abuse. But this is a very small number. Feedback was changed because of the amount of moderation it took...Same reason as ratings wont be removed...as we head down that path. Sure it sucks you get a bad rating but its part of life..It will balance out after 100s of games anyway.

lord voldemort wrote:bad idea...ratings are peoples opinions and should be left. sure you get the off ratings abuse. But this is a very small number. Feedback was changed because of the amount of moderation it took...Same reason as ratings wont be removed...as we head down that path. Sure it sucks you get a bad rating but its part of life..It will balance out after 100s of games anyway.

It may balance out after 100s of games, but there are players on here who play at a slower pace. If they receive a poor rating from one or more players, and the ratings were received unfairly from players who were just angry or interested in causing problems, they may not see the effects of that poor rating "balance out" for months.

Check into the situation with players who don't play that often, they've posted here and some have and still have the weight of those low ratings affecting their overall average.

"People's opinions" change with time, and it is far more difficult to go back and withdraw a rating than it is to have the system do it for you. More importantly, players fair play, game play (skill) and attitude change over time, or can change entirely on short notice. According to the current system, If a player's gameplay was piss poor for 500 games and was rated accordingly (one star for game play) in those 500 games, it would take 500 games of perfect play (and 500 5-star ratings in game play) to average out the game play score to a 3. It would take 1000 games of perfect play (and 1000 5-star ratings in game play) to bring the average up to a 3.7. It It would take 1500 games of perfect play (and 1500 5-star ratings in game play) to bring the average up to 4.

In the current system, A relative eternity would be necessary to increase a player's ratings if they made big changes in any one category. Similarly difficult if they made big changes in all categories. The weight of one or more poor ratings for players who do not play often will also take an eternity to get washed out.

so then the 500 games of douche baggery doesnt count at all...its like a drivers license...in australia you get 12 demerit points before you lose it.What your saying is that i being 21 could lose 10 of them...being the hoon driver that i am...I suddenly have a change of heart and now i should get those back?

lord voldemort wrote:so then the 500 games of douche baggery doesnt count at all...its like a drivers license...in australia you get 12 demerit points before you lose it.What your saying is that i being 21 could lose 10 of them...being the hoon driver that i am...I suddenly have a change of heart and now i should get those back?

Hey, I dislike a douchebag just like you. However, here in California, the points on your license expire after 3 years and are premanently removed after 5 years. Everyone deserves a second chance.

If a player makes a change of heart or a change of ability or a change of "fairness" I think the player should benefit from their newfound greatness, positivity or level-headedness.

More importantly, a player who gets one or more unfair ratings from players who (for whatever reason gave a low rating when it was undeserved) can have solace in knowing that the unfair rating will eventually get wiped away with time or with new ratings received.

For me, when I look to join a game, I look at that average rating next to a player's name. If it is low, I don't join. Those players may miss out on games. I don't have time to look at all of their ratings to see if they only have 50 ratings and 10 of them came low and undeserved.

On the other hand, if a player was being a saint and playing really well, then decided to go apesh*t as a new way of living, that shoudl be reflected in their *current* modus operandi found in their rating.

What if you played thousands of games, never missed a turn then got sick and went to the hospital for a week or something and timed out 100 games? would you deserve for your rating to go from 4.9 or whatever to 1?

With only a few ratings being kept, each rating effects your average much more. If you have 20 pages of ratings, someone giving you all 1's for no reason wont even effect your average. With 100 ratings, a few people giving you 1's could destroy your overall rating. It would be like being a new player again, when every rating effected your score.

I'm content with being 4.8-4.9, it doesn't bother me that not everyone likes me, i don't like everyone either

danes wrote:What if you played thousands of games, never missed a turn then got sick and went to the hospital for a week or something and timed out 100 games? would you deserve for your rating to go from 4.9 or whatever to 1?

With only a few ratings being kept, each rating effects your average much more. If you have 20 pages of ratings, someone giving you all 1's for no reason wont even effect your average. With 100 ratings, a few people giving you 1's could destroy your overall rating. It would be like being a new player again, when every rating effected your score.

I'm content with being 4.8-4.9, it doesn't bother me that not everyone likes me, i don't like everyone either

Or...what if you WON thousands of games, acted appropriately, played fairly and (by default) played well BUT received hundreds of negative ratings and tags simply because you WON? Unless you send hundreds of PMs out to request the offending players remove the ratings, they stay on there - FOREVER. And enough players read them. I've talked with players who rate based on how other players have rated a player - regardless of what took place in the game(s). I've talked with players who have rated other players down simply because of mood or dice. Then there are the raters who consistently rate everyone down, and the raters who rate you down in every category simply because of rude game chat. The list goes on and on. Because ratings are so tied to a subjective "emotion of the moment" and less tied to an objective review of performance in the three categories, it seems the fair thing to do to have ratings expire over time.

Your post objects to 100 ratings. Fine. Make the ratings expire after 3 months. Seems like a sufficiently long enough period of time. I can see, however, where freemiums would not have many ratings over a 3 month course, so, perhaps freemiums would need to have a fill box of 100 ratings...OR...something else. But something needs to change. Either they expire with time, expire once replaced in the fill box, or some combination of the two.

In no way is it fair to maintain ratings from players who were guested or banned for any reason, warned or otherwise punished for ratings abuse, or who simply rated down in three categories because they lost the game. (and for that matter players who simply give 15 stars in every game, those ratings aren't very fair either.)

I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.

The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample*. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.

*Even if the last player on the scoreboard has a 4.5 (= half-way between 'above average' and 'excellent') rating on gameplay.

Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.

The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.

Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.

The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.

Both of you are discounting the effect that negative ratings (mproperly received) have a huge weight upon freemiums and players who do not play a lot of games.

Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.

The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.

Both of you are discounting the effect that negative ratings (mproperly received) have a huge weight upon freemiums and players who do not play a lot of games.

I myself am a freemium playing 4 games at a time. I also receive ratings that I find improper, but I don't think that they mean such a huge burden. Everyone has the opportunity to respond to improper ratings. Also, there are hundreds of games to choose from when you start / join a game, so it is very unlikely that someone will not be able to play because of his / her ratings.

Jatekos wrote:I don't think that ratings should expire or be deleted after any number of games.

The more ratings received the more accurately they represent the attributes of the given player, because of the larger sample. It is true that improving low ratings can be more difficult if they are kept in the system and will not expire. Still, I think maintaining a historical record provides additional information, and should not be deleted.

Both of you are discounting the effect that negative ratings (mproperly received) have a huge weight upon freemiums and players who do not play a lot of games.

I myself am a freemium playing 4 games at a time. I also receive ratings that I find improper, but I don't think that they mean such a huge burden. Everyone has the opportunity to respond to improper ratings. Also, there are hundreds of games to choose from when you start / join a game, so it is very unlikely that someone will not be able to play because of his / her ratings.

Unfortunately, you're way off. There are more improper ratings than you would expect and it hits players where they live. When I'm searching for games, I tend to avoid those against players with really low ratings. Other players do the same thing. These days, "really low" means anything below 4.5 So, there is a huge impact. Some of hte clans out there only accept players if their rating average is above a certain average. So, yes, impact there as well.

Queen_Herpes wrote:Unfortunately, you're way off. There are more improper ratings than you would expect and it hits players where they live. When I'm searching for games, I tend to avoid those against players with really low ratings. Other players do the same thing. These days, "really low" means anything below 4.5 So, there is a huge impact. Some of hte clans out there only accept players if their rating average is above a certain average. So, yes, impact there as well.

As I said earlier, the more ratings the better. In a larger sample even the most improper ratings will even out. It is much more possible that a couple of extreme cases will decrease the average of a smaller sample, simply because each rating weights more. As for clans and individuals avoiding players with low ratings, I think they deserve the right to do that, and they probably do that for a reason. There are other clans / games to join. We could argue about what a 'really low' rating is, but that would be off topic.